Airports: Heathrow Air Quality Report

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Douglas Alexander) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published the technical report of the air quality technical panels instituted after the 2003 air transport White Paper to review the basis on which air quality assessments should be carried out for Heathrow airport.
	We continue to support further development at Heathrow, including the addition of a short, third runway in the 2015 to 2020 period, after a new runway at Stansted, but only if we can be confident that the conditions set out in the White Paper can be met. Publishing this report is a significant milestone in the programme of work to review the scope for meeting those conditions. I am grateful to the panel members who have devoted their energies over the past two years to a very full review of the issues and who have produced a detailed and comprehensive report.
	The report has been peer reviewed and I amhappy to accept its recommendations. It isprimarily concerned with methodology—how future assessments of air quality around Heathrow should be conducted. It does not attempt to prejudge the question of whether development at Heathrow is more or less likely to be achievable within the critical air quality limits. But, importantly, it provides a sound scientific basis on which we can now proceed to carry out the remaining stages of the work to address that question in the coming months, building on the panels' recommendations.
	Copies of the report are available in the Library and full details will be available on the department's website.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Reports

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Plaskitt) has made the following Statement.
	On behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection reports on the following councils were published today: Bath and North East Somerset Council, Elmbridge Borough Council, Exeter City Council, Gateshead Borough Council, Reading Borough Council, Shepway District Council, Stevenage Borough Council and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. Copies have been placed in the Library.
	The BFI reports detail a range of strengths and weaknesses in the housing benefit services provided by councils and make recommendations to improve the security and efficiency of benefit delivery. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering the reports and may ask the councils for proposals in response to the BFI's findings.

Defence Industrial Strategy and Procurement

Lord Drayson: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce progress on the complex weapons sector of the defence industrial strategy (DIS). This sector provides key missile development capabilities to our Armed Forces.
	The DIS identified that maintaining the industrial capability that we wished to retain onshore represented a substantial challenge given that we expect investment in new systems to decrease in the next five years from the current level due to a sharp decline in market size. We undertook to work with UK industry to meet this challenge and can now announce that we are forming a "Team Complex Weapons". "Team CW" is led by MBDA and is centred around QinetiQ, Thales Air Defence Ltd, Thales Missile Electronics and Roxel. "Team CW" will enable the UK to maintain key skills and technologies through a mixture of directed procurements and open competition, enabling controlled restructuring to take place while maintaining onshore access to the capabilities that our Armed Forces require.
	Together, we will develop "Team CW" during the second half of this year. We intend to agree a strategic partnering agreement in 2006. This will require contractually binding measures focused on business transformation both within the Ministry of Defence and within industry, allowing better-informed through-life decisions to be made and a more incremental approach to technology insertion to be adopted.
	We intend to use a range of programmesto incentivise the restructuring process. Most significantly, we have changed our procurement strategy for the loitering munition demonstration and manufacture programme, potentially worth more than £500 million. It will be single-sourced to the MBDA-led "Team CW", subject to an enduring requirement for this technology, to affordability and to the ability to clearly demonstrate value for money.
	We are also announcing four contracts for the development of technologies to contribute to the enhancement of Storm Shadow, and the future anti-surface and future rapid effects programmes, which will offer significant opportunities for collaboration. In the support area, we have placed a contract for availability known as PROJECT RevISE, which covers air-launched weapons designed by MBDA.
	Our joint approach with industry will enable usto develop a globally competitive industry that will deliver the technologically advanced missiles that our Armed Forces will need in the future.

Disability Rights Commission: Annual Report

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Anne McGuire) has made the following Statement.
	The Disability Rights Commission's annual report and accounts 2005-06 have been published todayand laid before Parliament. The annual report demonstrates the DRC's continuing success in its important work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people, promote equal opportunities, encourage good practice and keep the working of the Disability Discrimination Act and the DRC Act under review.

Disability: Remploy

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mrs Anne McGuire) has made the following Statement.
	Increasing the number of disabled people whom we support into work is a core part of our welfare reform agenda. This is central to meeting the department's aim of an 80 per cent employment rate and central to ensuring equality of opportunity for disabled people.
	Remploy was set up after the Second World War to provide employment to facilitate rehabilitation and progression to open employment. Employing around 5,000 disabled people, the Remploy factories are engaged in a wide range of sectors ranging from office furniture through textiles to electronics. These industry sectors have experienced significant change over the past 60 years, not least through increased international competition.
	In addition, the way in which we support disabled people into work has evolved. Strengthened disability rights mean that we are now in a stronger position to support people in a mainstream environment. This is why Remploy developed its Interwork business, which supported 4,300 people into jobs in 2005.
	These changes have raised significant questions about the future strategy for Remploy. That is why in March I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers and Stephen Duckworth, a disability expert with wide experience of disability rights and employment issues, to conduct a strategic review of the future business options for the company.
	Today, I have published the findings of the review. Copies of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report have been made available in the Libraries, Vote and Printed Paper Offices and on the DWP website, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2006/remploy.
	The report delivers a hard-hitting financial assessment of the challenges facing Remploy. Factories are facing growing cost pressures as aresult of increased international competition and technological development. The average cost per employee is £18,000 per year and over £48,000 in the household and toiletries factory—far greater than, say, the £5,000 cost per head of other Workstep providers.
	The report sets out a range of possible scenarios for the business, from no change to complete closure of the factory network. I am ruling out both these options.
	It is clear from both this report and that of the National Audit Office that doing nothing is not an option. This view is shared by the Remploy board, its management and the trade unions. The necessity for change is clear, but I believe that there is still a role for sheltered employment in the future.
	We recognise that change will have an inevitable impact on the disabled people whom Remploy employs. We want to give Remploy the time and support to determine the best way to modernise and restructure its business. We intend, therefore, to provide the necessary funding to enable this to happen—in particular, so that there is sufficient time to consider factory reorganisation as part of an overall restructuring package. This is not a cuts package for Remploy; on the contrary, we will be maintaining the baseline funding and investing more this year to help to deal with the short-term issues.
	I will be asking the board of Remploy to undertake the preliminary work to bring forward later next year a five-year restructuring plan with proposals both to modernise the business and to support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into work. Full consultation will take place with the trade unions and employees in developing this strategy. I will be making it clear that any such proposals must protect Remploy's disabled employees from compulsory redundancy. Once this plan is brought forward, we will consider whether we are able to offer the board additional funding for modernisation; we will also consider at that stage with the chair whether we need to enhance the range of skills on the board to help it to do this.
	Currently, Remploy supports around 9,000 disabled people in factory employment, Interwork and managed services. In the longer term, our ambition is that any restructuring should enable us to help significantly more disabled people in work than if we continue with the status quo, thus providing substantially more opportunities for disabled people and better value for the taxpayer.
	The efforts of Remploy's existing workforce, its chair, current board and supporters must not be underestimated or taken for granted. They have much to be proud of. But Remploy cannot stand still and we need to examine how the ideals that lay behind its creation 60 years ago can fit the world that it now faces.

Housing: Supporting People Programme

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government (Phil Woolas) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government are today confirming individual grant allocations to administering authorities for the Supporting People programme in 2007-08, which will fund housing-related support services for over1 million vulnerable people—including victims of domestic violence, teenage parents, older people and those with mental health problems—to help them to live independently in their accommodation.
	As part of the two-year local government funding settlement in December 2005, minimum allocations for 2007-08 were announced guaranteeing 95 per cent of the total available. Five per cent of the funding was held back pending consultation on the draft Supporting People distribution formula, with a commitment to confirming full Supporting People allocations for 2007-08 before the Summer Recess.
	The consultation on the Supporting People distribution formula is now complete and responses to this exercise have been assessed. Following consideration of the available options, a decision has been taken to target the remaining funding in 2007-08 to help to address some of the inherited uneven distribution of grant between authorities by increasing Supporting People funding to over half of all Supporting People local authorities.
	This decision is consistent with the approach taken to determining allocations in both 2005-06 and 2006-07, when an earlier version of the formula was used to inform the grant allocations to those authorities furthest from their correct relative share of the budget. Further work will be carried out on the analysis of responses to the consultation with a view to taking forward work on how we can distribute future funding based on need. All Supporting People grant allocations are listed below.
	The Government are also targeting funding from the Supporting People programme to assist linked programmes of national importance.
	This early announcement of funding for 2007-08 will help to provide the stability required by local authorities and the sector in order to plan for the future.
	
		
			 Local Authority 2007-08 grants allocation ( £ ) 
			 Barking and Dagenham 5,061,217 
			 Barnet 7,497,667 
			 Barnsley 5,673,232 
			 Bath and North East Somerset UA 4,011,947 
			 Bedfordshire County 7,118,216 
			 Bexley 2,984,688 
			 Birmingham 51,912,681 
			 Blackburn with Darwen UA 6,031,664 
			 Blackpool UA 6,138,533 
			 Bolton 9,101,572 
			 Bournemouth UA 11,152,392 
			 Bracknell Forest UA 2,016,121 
			 Bradford 19,219,872 
			 Brent 12,806,959 
			 Brighton and Hove UA 12,659,223 
			 Bristol, City of UA 27,812,095 
			 Bromley 5,428,129 
			 Buckinghamshire County 5,587,753 
			 Bury 6,653,044 
			 Calderdale 5,674,656 
			 Cambridgeshire County 12,168,459 
			 Camden 35,723,266 
			 Cheshire County 20,537,745 
			 City of London 698,534 
			 Cornwall County 14,204,036 
			 Coventry 15,490,980 
			 Croydon 8,951,651 
			 Cumbria County 9,443,164 
			 Darlington UA 3,825,855 
			 Derby UA 10,556,336 
			 Derbyshire County 17,260,646 
			 Devon County 19,337,068 
			 Doncaster 11,064,106 
			 Dorset County 9,665,842 
			 Dudley 6,439,067 
			 Durham County 14,588,081 
			 Ealing 11,125,397 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire UA 4,937,622 
			 East Sussex County 11,561,210 
			 Enfield 11,055,312 
			 Essex County 29,622,839 
			 Gateshead 5,987,723 
			 Gloucestershire County 24,633,207 
			 Greenwich 9,302,736 
			 Hackney 22,221,917 
			 Halton UA 7,803,714 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 12,826,145 
			 Hampshire County 31,109,951 
			 Haringey 21,330,020 
			 Harrow 3,582,678 
			 Hartlepool UA 3,984,694 
			 Havering 2,578,536 
			 Herefordshire, County of UA 6,523,367 
			 Hertfordshire County 21,000,881 
			 Hillingdon 5,954,047 
			 Hounslow 5,525,734 
			 Isles of Scilly 1,846 
			 Isle of Wight UA 6,379,804 
			 Islington 15,934,504 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 11,170,507 
			 Kent County 32,024,915 
			 Kingston upon Hull, City of UA 11,059,567 
			 Kingston upon Thames 4,405,694 
			 Kirklees 10,593,700 
			 Knowsley 7,381,274 
			 Lambeth 20,792,197 
			 Lancashire County 29,052,873 
			 Leeds 32,986,531 
			 Leicester UA 15,529,446 
			 Leicestershire County 7,012,300 
			 Lewisham 17,219,829 
			 Lincolnshire County 21,373,288 
			 Liverpool 41,900,943 
			 Luton UA 4,520,292 
			 Manchester 38,557,790 
			 Medway UA 5,840,889 
			 Merton 3,385,278 
			 Middlesbrough UA 5,982,841 
			 Milton Keynes UA 5,241,687 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 18,817,689 
			 Newham 11,068,502 
			 Norfolk County 16,336,572 
			 North East Lincolnshire UA 6,145,522 
			 North Lincolnshire UA 3,454,079 
			 North Somerset UA 5,874,185 
			 North Tyneside 8,623,570 
			 North Yorkshire County 15,180,220 
			 Northamptonshire County 14,256,621 
			 Northumberland County 7,054,329 
			 Nottingham UA 26,052,630 
			 Nottinghamshire County 25,705,789 
			 Oldham 8,227,686 
			 Oxfordshire County 18,856,965 
			 Peterborough UA 4,607,583 
			 Plymouth UA 8,213,292 
			 Poole UA 4,944,078 
			 Portsmouth UA 8,921,250 
			 Reading UA 4,935,083 
			 Redbridge 4,467,863 
			 Redcar and Cleveland UA 2,410,460 
			 Richmond upon Thames 2,847,584 
			 Rochdale 15,076,659 
			 Rotherham 7,567,131 
			 Rutland UA 730,810 
			 Salford 13,191,145 
			 Sandwell 10,580,319 
			 Sefton 6,746,556 
			 Sheffield 25,227,224 
			 Shropshire County 6,345,391 
			 Slough UA 4,325,790 
			 Solihull 2,778,479 
			 Somerset County 19,063,308 
			 South Gloucestershire UA 4,674,886 
			 South Tyneside 4,947,095 
			 Southampton UA 10,559,245 
			 Southend-on-Sea UA 4,908,331 
			 Southwark 18,765,619 
			 St Helens 10,218,473 
			 Staffordshire County 11,971,701 
			 Stockport 8,022,591 
			 Stockton-on-Tees UA 2,950,823 
			 Stoke-on-Trent UA 5,479,678 
			 Suffolk County 18,734,394 
			 Sunderland 11,263,297 
			 Surrey County 18,509,347 
			 Sutton 3,667,041 
			 Swindon UA 5,397,250 
			 Tameside 7,217,707 
			 Telford & Wrekin UA 3,917,442 
			 Thurrock UA 2,375,440 
			 Torbay UA 5,708,189 
			 Tower Hamlets 15,384,899 
			 Trafford 5,431,885 
			 Wakefield 6,967,057 
			 Walsall 7,067,337 
			 Waltham Forest 7,882,823 
			 Wandsworth 11,177,258 
			 Warrington UA 7,611,086 
			 Warwickshire County 10,146,789 
			 West Berkshire UA 5,408,772 
			 West Sussex County 15,049,327 
			 Westminster 17,051,638 
			 Wigan 7,626,132 
			 Wiltshire County 8,174,934 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead UA 1,723,056 
			 Wirral 10,341,400 
			 Wokingham UA 1,609,880 
			 Wolverhampton 7,997,826 
			 Worcestershire County 14,984,323 
			 York UA 8,268,239

Immigration: Zimbabwe

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr Liam Byrne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	As a result of intelligence received in 2001 andJuly 2004 suggesting systematic fraud in applications for UK ancestry from Zimbabwean nationals, consideration of such applications was suspended last year pending further investigation.
	In the light of continued evidence of fraudulent Zimbabwean applications for indefinite leave to remain in the UK on grounds of UK ancestry lodged prior to 25 October 2004, my predecessor made an authorisation on 16 January of six months' duration under Section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976. This authorisation enabled staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to subject these applications to more rigorous investigation than applications from persons of other nationalities, for the purpose of detecting fraudulent applications.
	As a result of our review of this authorisation, I have decided to renew it for a further six months. We will review the continued need for this authorisation before its expiry.
	A copy of the authorisation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

NHS: Annual Reports

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Ivan Lewis), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The annual reports and accounts for the following organisations have been laid before Parliament today:
	Dental Practice Board
	Dental Vocational Training Authority
	Mental Health Act Commission
	National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
	NHS Appointments Commission
	NHS Blood and Transplant
	NHS Business Services Authority
	NHS Direct
	NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement
	NHS Logistics Authority
	NHS Professionals
	NHSU
	National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
	The annual reports and accounts for the following organisations will be laid before Parliament shortly:
	Human Tissue Authority
	Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
	Council for Health Care Regulatory Excellence
	Healthcare Commission
	NHS Pensions Agency
	NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service
	Prescription Pricing Authority
	The business plans for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency have been placed in the Library today.

Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman: Annual Report

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland's annual report and accounts for the year ended31 March 2006 is published today. Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Ninth Report to Parliament

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The ninth report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) was published today. The report covers the main points of the 2005 scheme and the delivery of the 7 per cent price cut; the management and operation of the 1999 scheme, including the delivery of the 4.5 per cent price cut; and consolidated information on company annual financial returns. The report sets out the contribution made to the economy by the UK-based pharmaceutical industry and gives an update on international price comparisons. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

Prisoners: Foreign Nationals

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr Liam Byrne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I would like to update the House on progress in deporting foreign national prisoners, following the Home Secretary's Statement on 23 May (Official Report, Commons; col. 77WS).
	Our objective is that foreign national prisoners should face deportation and that deportation should happen as early as possible in their sentence. As an immediate step, we now have an imminent release team in IND working with HM Prison Service to ensure that foreign national prisoners who meet the existing criteria are not being released from prison without being considered for deportation. My review of the past few weeks confirms that, in order fully to achieve our objective, there is a need for legislation, as well as for fundamental reforms in the eight areas identified.
	First, the Home Secretary identified that there is today no unique identifier to link individuals who come in contact with the asylum, immigrationand criminal justice systems. We have therefore commenced development of a comprehensive approach to identity management across all Home Office areas and will finalise a strategic action plan by the end of September 2006.
	Secondly, we have identified that the police, Crown Prosecution Service, courts and prisons depend on self-declaration of nationality and that there is no requirement for the police to record the nationality of people brought into custody. There is no requirement in law for a detainee to furnish details of their identity or nationality. IND and the criminal justice agencies have now designed and tested proposals for newways of working, alongside options for new legal requirements to address this. We will conduct detailed field tests with front-line staff over the summer and produce recommendations in October.
	Thirdly, work has to be done to ensure that all future instructions are given to all agencies of the criminal justice, asylum and immigration systems and are both consistent and fully implemented. IND needs to work much more closely with the criminal justice agencies. Lin Homer has therefore joined the National Criminal Justice Board to ensure that this is done. Since 23 May, new guidance has been issued to IND and the Prison Service. Over the summer, we will audit related guidance of six key agencies, benchmark implementation and develop recommendations for change, including training provision, by October. This will be followed up by training and awareness events for staff working in the 20 key prisons, which process the largest numbers of foreign national prisoners at the earliest stages of their sentences, by the end of 2006.
	Fourthly, the Home Secretary asked for an audit of policy criteria and processes and, fifthly, for steps to be taken to ensure that all deportation decisions are made according to the most robust interpretation of the requirements of our international obligations. Guidance in May to IND and prisons identified interim criteria, so that all non-EEA nationals sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more, either in one sentence or in two or three sentences over five years, and all EEA nationals sentenced to24 months or more, should be considered for deportation. We are changing the Immigration Rules with effect from midnight tonight to confirm the presumption that all such prisoners should be deported. The guidance also sets out that only rarely will factors other than international obligations weigh against deportation.
	But the current law does not go far enough to link criminality with deportation in the way that we would want and the public would expect. We need to change the law to make deportation the norm for foreign national prisoners, to remove some in-country rights of appeal, to streamline procedures and otherwise to remove barriers to deportation and removal, including existing exemptions for some Commonwealth nationals. We shall announce further steps in the wider IND review, to be published before the Recess.
	Sixthly, new formal arrangements are now in place to refer cases for consideration of deportation where the foreign national prisoner is in custody in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Prison authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland have confirmed that these processes are working well. These arrangements involve IND officials and officials in the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Prison Service, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Agencies are now developing proposals to extend these formal arrangements for referral across the justice systems in these jurisdictions: for example, with the police, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and Scottish courts; and at each stage in the system in Northern Ireland, as approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	The seventh priority area for action is the sensitive issue of mentally disordered offenders, where there has hitherto been no established system of referral and nationality has not routinely been recorded. As with Scotland and Northern Ireland, arrangements have now been put in place to ensure that cases are referred for consideration of deportation for this particular group when their formal restriction is due to end. Home Office officials are considering with the Department of Health what other actions we might take to ensure that mentally disordered offenderscan be considered for deportation at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
	Finally, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is conducting targeted interviews with foreign national prisoners who qualify to transfer to serve their sentence in their home country. An urgent amendment is being sought to legislation currently before Parliament to remove the need for prisoner consent in these cases, and prisoner transfer agreements are being negotiated with more foreign Governments. We have agreements with 96 countries and territories. NOMS, IND and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are assembling a package of measures to accelerate this work further.
	There remains much to be done. Progress in all these areas will be reported in due course.

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Lord Goldsmith: During the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 13/1/05; col. 130) and the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (Official Report, Commons, 7/2/05; col. 615) statements were made that certain powers available to the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) would not be used in respect of tax offences until the outcome of the consideration of these powers by the current review of HM Revenue and Customs' powers.
	Those powers are contained in Part 2 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which came into force on 1 April. They enable the director of RCPO (and prosecutors to whom he has delegated such powers) to serve disclosure notices, obtain material, conduct compulsory interviews and execute search warrants. These powers are powers of RCPO, not of HMRC; they are RCPO's to use. However, the prosecutor can authorise use of the powers by an officer of HMRC in respect of tax offences where the prosecutor has decided that such use is appropriate.
	As the powers are for RCPO to use, the issue for the review of HMRC's powers to consider was the guidance that was available to HMRC staff when a prosecutor had authorised the use of the powers by an officer of HMRC. The review has looked atthat guidance and, following minor changes, has approved it.
	The Paymaster General and I agree that the powers contained in Part 2 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are now available for use by RCPO in respect of tax offences.

Roads: M25

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Douglas Alexander) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	In July 2003, Alistair Darling, in response to the Orbit multi-modal study, confirmed his intention to add an extra lane of capacity to bring most of the remaining three-lane sections of the M25 up to four lanes in each direction. Construction work on this major investment project costing over £2 billion is expected to start in 2008 and run through until 2016 with the widening being undertaken in stages.
	At the time of the decision to increase the capacity of the M25, it was made clear that widening wouldbe pursued alongside measures to improve the management of traffic flow in order to lock in the benefits that the additional capacity would provide.
	The department has been exploring how traffic management technology already being used on the motorway network might be used to control congestion on the orbital motorway and its junctions. But traffic using the motorway also uses surrounding local roads and not just the motorway. The modelling that has been completed shows that there is potentially considerable benefit to be gained inthe department applying and operating traffic management techniques jointly with local authorities. The benefits would be reflected in better overall journey times for the majority of road users across both the national and the local networks.
	It is vital that we harness local authorities' local knowledge at the planning stage, as well as developing a joint approach in applying that knowledge. I am therefore writing today to all the local authorities around the M25 to start this dialogue, focusing initially on those in the north-west segment, where the first section of widening will take place, with the aim of developing an approach that will ensure that long-distance traffic and local residents all benefit from this huge national investment.

Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland: Annual Report

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland (David Hanson) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have placed copies of the Youth Justice Agency's annual report and accounts for 2005-06 in the Libraries of both Houses. This is the agency's third annual report since its inception on 1 April 2003. It achieved nine of its 10 key performance targets and all 17 of its development objectives.